Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nirur Torir]

Years back, there was a game on this board set a short distance in the future, about colonizing space and backstabbing each other. We had a senate, who elected a leader, and various player-given positions like planetary governors and admirals.

I had the idea to run a game like it, and wanted to see if there was enough interest.

Ideas:
-Secrets. There will be a main thread for with commonly available information, like the reported planet statuses. There might be two threads, if we have two colonies. A governor might decide to skim funds and lie about the planet's income, which will only be revealed if someone looks.
-Players can get skills and traits, and should have some influence over them. These will be kept secret. You might develop spying skills, or industry skills to boost planet income, letting you take some yet still have the planet look prosperous.
-Perhaps skill training costs can on a steep curve? Pay $1000 into training for x1 XP, or $10,000 for x1.5 XP.
-Planets need things for governors to do. Research, industrialization, trade development, terraforming, infrastructure, military/naval training and construction. 2 players should be able to develop a planet together in different areas, but there should be some form of stacking penalty. Otherwise the optimal strategy would be for everyone to sit in the capital until it's fully developed.
-Riots! Splinter factions (PC or otherwise)! Aliens! Meteor showers! We need threats and crises!
-FTL eventually, colonizing new systems and adding another level of disorganization, for more backstabbing potential.
-Crusader Kings 2 style stats for players? Those are fun, but it might not be fun for those who roll below average.

For a setting, I think it would be fun to have a STL generation ship entering a fertile system. It gives us a few turns to settle on one planet and lightly organize the players into some form of government, and then we get enough fuel refineries to shuttle some goods back into the colony ship and scatter the players along the system.
We could have two sister ships entering the system at the same time, giving us two colonies and maybe two threads. It gives natural competition, but might make backstabbing your own colony less tempting.

Any interest? Any other ideas, or building off of these?

[Ghazkull]

Hell yes, the Mandate returned and this time i can actually play ^^

[notquitethere]

I'm game. I played a renaissance city-state game a bit like this some years back on the forum which had a neat spying mechanic.  Everyone had agents they could deploy via PM actions.

[Naturegirl1999]

Interested

[TricMagic]

Well, I'll be the rarely acting, but I'll try. Expect explosions at some point.

[Kakaluncha]

Oh, I think this an intersting idea. I will play.

[NUKE9.13]

Could be interesting. What sort of timescale were you thinking of? I assume it would be turn-based, but would turns be months, years, decades?

It does sound like a key component would be having enough active players to have a somewhat functional political system. Might be worth thinking about ways of ensuring the game is accessible- ie, the basic rules/setting shouldn't be too daunting (even if there are also more advanced rules for those who'd rather get more invested).

Where on the scale from boardgame (purely mechanical) to freeform (purely RP) would this be?

(PS, you misspelled Treachery)

[micelus]

Interested

[notquitethere]

Might be worth thinking about ways of ensuring the game is accessible- ie, the basic rules/setting shouldn't be too daunting (even if there are also more advanced rules for those who'd rather get more invested).

Yeah , this. It must be easy to make group decisions and for time to move on otherwise things will stall out.

Will we all be of a similar station-- all faction leaders, politicians, elected officials, or a mix of things?

[Nirur Torir]

Hell yes, the Mandate returned and this time i can actually play ^^

That's the one I was thinking of! Here.

Could be interesting. What sort of timescale were you thinking of? I assume it would be turn-based, but would turns be months, years, decades?

Years.

It does sound like a key component would be having enough active players to have a somewhat functional political system. Might be worth thinking about ways of ensuring the game is accessible- ie, the basic rules/setting shouldn't be too daunting (even if there are also more advanced rules for those who'd rather get more invested).

Where on the scale from boardgame (purely mechanical) to freeform (purely RP) would this be?

95% mechanical. I'm bad at simple rules, but I'll try to keep it in mind not to let things spiral too far. Regardless, any given player shouldn't have too much to worry about mechanically.

(PS, you misspelled Treachery)

Oops.

Will we all be of a similar station-- all faction leaders, politicians, elected officials, or a mix of things?

I'm thinking of rolling the dice to set someone as a senate leader, with more power, and everyone else as a senator. An arbitrarily assigned leader gives more temptation for players to break away from the group.

[Nirur Torir]

I think I'd rather have only one colony ship at game start, to make the starting system smaller and encourage spreading out.

Fleets and Naval Combat:
Initially, you may only build military fleets of Strength 1. The exact composition is left up to the players' imagination and fluff text, but Strength 1 may represent something the size of of a wing of long-ranged interceptors with a fighter tender corvette, a small wolf-pack of corvettes, or a frigate.
A higher technology level and shipyard level are needed to build fleets with a higher Strength rating. If no shipyard is available, or if speed is of the essence, civilian ships may be purchased and converted to 0.5 Strength fleets. This is much more expensive than a military fleet.
Generally, 3 Strength 1 fleets fight on-par with 1 Strength 3 fleet. A higher Strength fleet is slightly cheaper, and damaged or destroyed ships will be easier to repair (or yield more salvage to the victor).
All ships have transport space. Fleets spending a turn docked may freely switch to one of three configurations: Combat, Transport, or Recon. Transport or Recon fleets fight at 75% strength, but carry twice the troops or can travel twice as far before resupply.
Once you discover FTL engines, fleets will only be able to make a certain number of jumps before resupplying at a friendly colony. If forced to continue on without supplies, they will begin rapidly taking damage as they cannibalize themselves for parts and morale drops from limited emergency rations. Combat will be severely hampered.
FTL fuel will be assumed to be limited in systems not trading for it, but available from the black market. Expect increased maintenance and ship construction costs, dependant on how controlled the trade is.
Navies in combat will deal about 40% of their strength to the other over 1 turn, before modifiers.
Players will colonize new worlds by chartering merchant fleets, not through military fleets.

There are two ways I can do transport space: Either A) all ships have dedicated marine transport space, which can be swapped out for invasion troops, or B) all ships have cargo space which can be used for ground troops or trade goods, giving admirals extra income while they patrol.
I like how option A works with fluff, because I can say that boarding doctrines are common enough that all ships have abundant marines, and even an unprepared fleet can help fight rebels with their standard marines. Option B gives admiral players more to do.

[RulerOfNothing]

Posting to watch and register interest.

[Taricus]

Yep, definitely interested in this.

[Imic]

This looks interesting.

[NUKE9.13]

There are two ways I can do transport space: Either A) all ships have dedicated marine transport space, which can be swapped out for invasion troops, or B) all ships have cargo space which can be used for ground troops or trade goods, giving admirals extra income while they patrol.
I like how option A works with fluff, because I can say that boarding doctrines are common enough that all ships have abundant marines, and even an unprepared fleet can help fight rebels with their standard marines. Option B gives admiral players more to do.

I'd go with B, lest admirals rebel for boredom's sake. Not that there's anything wrong with rebelling, but they should have a good reason to do so.

Also, no element of randomness at all in fleet combat? That makes any fight a bygone conclusion, which discourages actual combat- if one side has no chance of victory, why would they fight (unless there's absolutely no choice)? If you don't want to use dice, maybe a sort of rock-paper-scissors on the part of the commanding admirals (aggressive-skirmish-defensive, or something)?